## Chullin Daf 43b

###### Chullin 43b:1
[Chullin 43b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:1)

לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The *halakha* is necessary **for** a case in which it was **uncertain** whether an animal was **clawed** by a predator. If the animal was in fact clawed, the gullet would have become red. Since the outer lining is always red, the gullet must be checked on the inside to ascertain whether it is still white.


###### Chullin 43b:2
[Chullin 43b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:2)

הָהִיא סְפֵק דְּרוּסָה דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, הֲוָה קָא בָּדֵיק לֵיהּ רַבָּה לְוֶושֶׁט מֵאַבָּרַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא מָר הוּא דְּאָמַר: וֶושֶׁט אֵין לוֹ בְּדִיקָה אֶלָּא מִבִּפְנִים! אַפְכֵיהּ רַבָּה וּבַדְקֵיהּ, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח עֲלֵיהּ תְּרֵי קוּרְטֵי דְּמָא, וְטַרְפַהּ. וְרַבָּה נָמֵי לְחַדּוֹדֵי לְאַבָּיֵי הוּא דְּבָעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara recounts the case of **a certain** animal concerning which it was **uncertain** whether it was **clawed** by a predator, **which came before Rabba. Rabba was checking its gullet from the outside. Abaye said to him: But isn’t it** you, **Master, who says:** The **gullet may be inspected only from the inside? Rabba turned over** the gullet **and checked it** from the inside, **and found on it two drops of blood, and deemed it a *tereifa*** due to clawing. The Gemara notes: **And Rabba as well desired** only **to sharpen Abaye** by inducing him to ask. He did not forget his own statement.


###### Chullin 43b:3
[Chullin 43b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:3)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: יָשַׁב לוֹ קוֹץ בַּוֶּושֶׁט, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא הִבְרִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla says: If a thorn sat in** the animal’s **gullet** but did not perforate the outer lining, **one** need **not be concerned** that **perhaps** it perforated the outer lining beforehand and the perforation **healed** and a scab formed over it, in which case the animal would be a *tereifa*, as stated above. Rather, one assumes that the thorn never perforated the outer lining and the animal is kosher.


###### Chullin 43b:4
[Chullin 43b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:4)

(דָּרַס חֲתִיכוֹת בְּסַכִּין טְמֵאָה, סִימָן)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides **a mnemonic** for the following questions with regard to Ulla’s statement: **Clawed, pieces, with a knife, ritually impure.**


###### Chullin 43b:5
[Chullin 43b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:5)

וּלְעוּלָּא, מַאי שְׁנָא מִסְּפֵק דְּרוּסָה? קָסָבַר עוּלָּא אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to Ulla,** given that this is a case of uncertainty, in **what** way **is** it **different from** a case of **uncertainty** as to whether an animal was **clawed,** where the animal must be checked and cannot be presumed kosher? The Gemara responds: **Ulla holds** that **one** need **not be concerned with regard to an uncertainty** as to whether the animal was **clawed.**


###### Chullin 43b:6
[Chullin 43b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:6)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִשְּׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל חֵלֶב וְאַחַת שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן? הָתָם אִיתַּחְזַק אִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in **what** way **is** this case **different from** a case where there were **two pieces** of fat before a person, **one of forbidden fat and one of** permitted **fat,** and the person ate one piece but does not know which one, where the *halakha* is that one must bring a provisional guilt offering due to the possibility that he consumed forbidden fat? Evidently, one may not presume that an item is permitted in a case of uncertainty. The Gemara responds: **There,** one finds **a presumption of prohibition,** since one of the pieces is certainly prohibited. Here, with regard to the thorn, there is no presumption of prohibition.


###### Chullin 43b:7
[Chullin 43b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:7)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין, וְנִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה? הָתָם אִיתְיְילִיד לַהּ רֵיעוּתָא בְּסַכִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in **what** way **is** the case of the thorn **different from** the case of **one who slaughters with a knife** that was previously checked for flaws **but was** then **found to be notched** after the slaughter? In that case, it is uncertain whether the notch existed at the time of slaughter, yet the animal is prohibited. The Gemara responds: **There, a deficiency was born in the knife.** Accordingly, one must be concerned that it was notched beforehand as well. By contrast, the wall of the gullet is currently intact, and one may therefore presume that it was intact beforehand as well.


###### Chullin 43b:8
[Chullin 43b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:8)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִסְּפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, דִּסְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא? וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, נִידַמְּיֵיהּ לִסְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, דִּסְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר! אֶלָּא הָתָם, הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ מִסּוֹטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in **what** way **is** this case **different from an uncertainty** with regard to **ritual impurity in a private domain, whose uncertainty** is presumed **impure?** The Gemara responds: **But according to your reasoning, let us compare it** instead **to uncertainty** with regard to **impurity in a public domain, whose uncertainty** is presumed **pure. Rather, there,** with regard to the presumption of impurity in a private domain and purity in a public domain, the Sages **learned this *halakha* through tradition from** the *halakha* of **a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [*sota*].** Therefore, one cannot extend it to other cases.


###### Chullin 43b:9
[Chullin 43b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:9)

יָתֵיב הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: ״נִמְצֵאת״ אִתְּמַר, אֲבָל יָשַׁב – חָיְישִׁינַן. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: לָא תְּצִיתוּ לֵיהּ, ״יָשַׁב״ אִיתְּמַר, אֲבָל נִמְצֵאת – לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְעוּלָּא, דְּכוּלְּהוּ חֵיוֵי בָּרָיָיתָא קוֹצֵי אָכְלָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **one of the Sages was sitting before Rav Kahana, and he was sitting and saying:** It **was stated** that one need not be concerned that the thorn perforated the linings of the gullet only if it **was found** loose inside the gullet. **But** if it **sat** embedded in the gullet wall, **we** must be **concerned** that the outer lining was perforated and later healed, rendering the animal a *tereifa*. **Rav Kahana said to** the other Sages: **Do not listen to him.** Rather, it **was stated** that one need not be concerned about a possible perforation if the thorn **sat** embedded in the gullet wall. **But** in a case where it was simply **found** there loose, it **was not necessary for Ulla** to say that the animal is kosher, **since all animals** that live **outside eat thorns,** and it is reasonable to expect to find them in the gullet without presuming injury.


###### Chullin 43b:10
[Chullin 43b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:10)

אִיתְּמַר: תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט – רַב אָמַר: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּרוּבּוֹ. רַב אָמַר בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ: מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר בְּרוּבּוֹ: לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if the gullet was perforated, the animal is a *tereifa*. **It was stated:** In a case where **the entrance [*turbatz*] of the gullet** from the pharynx was perforated, **Rav says:** The animal is a *tereifa* if **any** part of the gullet was perforated. **And Shmuel says:** It is a *tereifa* only if **its majority** was perforated. **Rav says:** If **any** part was perforated, because he holds that the entrance of the gullet **is a location** fit for **slaughter** and is therefore considered part of the gullet. **And Shmuel says:** If **its majority** was perforated, because he holds that **it is not a location** fit for **slaughter** and is not considered part of the gullet.


###### Chullin 43b:11
[Chullin 43b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:11)

הֵי נִיהוּ תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט? אָמַר מָרִי בַּר מָר עוּקְבָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁחוֹתְכוֹ וּמַרְחִיב – זֶה הוּא תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט, חוֹתְכוֹ וְעוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ – זֶהוּ וֶושֶׁט עַצְמוֹ. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פַּפֵּי: מָר לָא אָמַר הָכִי, וּמַנּוּ? רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי. אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁחוֹתְכוֹ וְעוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ – זֶה תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט, אֶלָּא אֵיזֶהוּ וֶושֶׁט עַצְמוֹ? כֹּל שֶׁחוֹתְכוֹ וְכָוֵיץ. יוֹנָה אָמַר זֵירָא: מַבְלַעְתָּא, וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב אַוְיָא: פָּחוּת מִשְּׂעָרְתָּא וַעֲדִיף מֵחִיטְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **Which** area **is the entrance of the gullet? Mari bar Mar Ukva said** that **Shmuel said: All** of the area **that widens** outward **when cut** along its width, **this is the entrance of the gullet;** all the area that **remains in place when cut, this is the gullet itself. Rav Pappi said to them: Master did not say so. And who is** that Master? It is **Rav Beivai bar Abaye. Rather,** he said that **all** of the area **that remains in place when cut, this is the entrance of the gullet. But which** area, then, **is the gullet itself?** It is **all** of the area **that constricts when cut** and closes inward. The Sage **Yona says** in the name of Rabbi **Zeira:** The entrance of the gullet is only the area of the **throat immediately** bordering the gullet. **And how much** of the throat qualifies as the entrance of the gullet? **Rav Avya said: Less than** the length of **a barley** kernel **and more than** the length of **a wheat** kernel.


###### Chullin 43b:12
[Chullin 43b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:12)

הָהוּא תּוֹרָא דַּהֲוָה לִבְנֵי רַב עוּקְבָא, דְּאַתְחֵיל בֵּיהּ שְׁחִיטָה בְּתוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט, וּגְמַר בְּוֶושֶׁט. אָמַר רָבָא: רָמֵינָא עֲלֵיהּ חוּמְרֵי דְּרַב וְחוּמְרֵי דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְטָרֵיפְנָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates an incident involving **a certain bull that belonged to the sons of Rav Ukva, where** its **slaughter began** with a small incision **in the entrance of the gullet and concluded** in its majority **in the gullet. Rava said: I impose upon it the stringencies of Rav and the stringencies of Shmuel, and deem it a *tereifa*.**


###### Chullin 43b:13
[Chullin 43b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:13)

חוּמְרֵי דְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. וְהָאָמַר רַב: מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא! כִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא. אִי שְׁמוּאֵל, הָאָמַר: בְּרוּבּוֹ! כְּרַב, דְּאָמַר: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
I impose the **stringencies of Rav, as Rav said:** The animal is a *tereifa* if **any** part of the entrance of the gullet was perforated before slaughter. Such is the case here, since the incision began in the entrance of the gullet. Perhaps one will ask: **But doesn’t Rav say** that the entrance of the gullet **is a location** fit for **slaughter,** in which case the initial incision should be considered the beginning of the act of slaughter? To this I will respond: I hold **in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel, who says** that it is **not a location** fit for **slaughter.** If one asks: **If** I hold in accordance with the opinion of **Shmuel, doesn’t he say:** It is a *tereifa* only if it was perforated **in its majority?** To this I will respond: I hold **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav, who says:** If **any** part was perforated. Consequently, I deem the animal a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 43b:14
[Chullin 43b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:14)

אִיגַּלְגַּל מִילְּתָא, מְטַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: תּוֹרָא, בֵּין לְרַב בֵּין לִשְׁמוּאֵל שְׁרֵי. זִילוּ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא, דִּלְשַׁלֵּים דְּמֵי תוֹרָא לְמָרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **the matter circulated,** and **it came before Rabbi Abba,** who **said to** his students: This **bull is permitted** for consumption, **both according to Rav,** who holds that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, **and according to Shmuel,** who holds that it is not a *tereifa* unless it is perforated in its majority. Therefore, **go tell the son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama,** i.e., Rava, **that** he is **to pay the value of the bull to its owner,** since he improperly deemed it a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 43b:15
[Chullin 43b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/43b:15)

אָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא: מוֹתְבִינָא תְּיוּבְתָּא כְּלַפֵּי סָנְאֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, לְעוֹלָם הִלְכְתָא כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, וְהָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי – עוֹשֶׂה, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל – עוֹשֶׂה. מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית הִלֵּל – רָשָׁע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar, son of Ravina, said: I offer a conclusive refutation to the enemies of Rava,** a euphemism for Rava himself, from a *baraita*: **The *halakha*** is **always in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai may do so,** and one who wishes to act **in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel may do so.** But if one wishes to adopt both **the leniencies of Beit Shammai and** also **the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person.**